3 ms·

It's worth noting that trading spikes in advance of public availability of news doesn't necessarily imply illegal activity. Overheard conversations between stra

It's worth noting that trading spikes in advance of public availability of news doesn't necessarily imply illegal activity. Overheard conversations between strangers, for example, are fair game.

jandrese 8y ago
There is probably also magnification effects from bots scanning the market for anomalies and piling on.
all_blue_chucks 8y ago
> Overheard conversations between strangers, for example, are fair game. Wrong. It's insider trading if you have material, nonpublic information. It doesn't matter how you got that information.
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  >Wrong. It's insider trading if you have material, nonpublic information. It doesn't matter how you got that information. You are totally mistaken as far as the law in the United States. I can’t speak for other jurisdictions.
  - rrdharan 8y ago
    As I posted above, the poster is not mistaken.
    - marcoperaza 8y ago
      I think you've misread the thread.
- rrdharan 8y ago
  No, it only matters if you had a duty to keep that information confidential: https://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T052-C008-S001-would-you-be-guilty-of-insider-trading.html https://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T052-C008-S001-w...
  - shkkmo 8y ago
    Several examples given that article seems to conflict with the explanation given in the other article linked in the replies, particularly situation 7. Your article justifies it "Yes" answer because you were told the information was confidential, but then the "case study" used to back this up includes envelopes on cash being exchanged for this information. My reading of the other article seems to indicate that you would be fine because the CEO was not compensated by you for providing the information and there is nothing to indicate that this information was given as a gift. Other article: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-07-31/when-can-investors-talk-to-companies- https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-07-31/when-c... Edit: Given the bloomberg article cites relevant supreme court cases, I'm more inclined to believe it.
- scott_s 8y ago
  Matt Levine has written extensively on how squishy the line can be: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-07-31/when-can-investors-talk-to-companies- https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-07-31/when-c...
  - shkkmo 8y ago
    > So it's illegal "when an insider makes a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend." But if you read that too literally, you run right back into the first problem. There you are, at your job, talking on the phone with a company's investor relations department. The IR guy helps you with some questions about your model. You get off the phone convinced that the company is a buy. You go to buy stock. But wait. Your relationship with the IR guy is pretty cordial. You mentioned your love of fishing, and he said, "Hey, we ought to go fishing together sometime," and you said, "Sure, that sounds great," not that either of you meant it. That's messed up. It should be a breach of fiduciary duty to continue to interface as investor relations with an investor who you have established a friendship with. Being friendly on the phone is one thing, but join family vacations? As the relationship becomes closer, the fishier any exclusive information provided should smell. You become friends with someone? At a certain point both the investor and and investore relations personel should have to hand off the professional relationship to colleages to avoid the risk of insider trading charges.
    - ric2b 8y ago
      So don't give confidential information to outsiders of the company, whether they are friends or not? I don't see the issue.
      - scott_s 8y ago
        "Confidential" is a big word. There is a lot of internal information about a company that is not strictly labeled "confidential." Putting that aside, I think Levine's point, which he makes in the piece I linked and has made in several other columns, is relevant: > Er. Um. Sure. But another component of effective professional analysis of the value of a company's stock is talking to the company. There's a reason that companies have earnings calls. There's a reason that, when analysts get into the weeds on those calls, the companies say things like, "We'll follow up with you individually afterwards." There's a reason that companies selling stocks or bonds do one-on-one meetings with potential buyers. There's a reason that companies not selling stocks and bonds also do one-on-one meetings with current and potential investors. There's a reason that companies have investor relations departments full of people who talk to current and potential investors. All of this gets to a point Levine has also made many times over, which is there is no explicit statute outlawing insider trading. Which seems crazy! People go to prison over it. But when you sit down and try to define it, it becomes even more of a mess, so here we are.
- zorga 8y ago
  Absolutely not. > It doesn't matter how you got that information. Yes it does, if I didn't do anything illegal to acquire it, and I have no obligation to the company, I can use it legally, I'm not an insider.
  - wahern 8y ago
    Not quite. If you knowingly acquired the information from an insider and the insider himself would be liable for your trade (e.g. you're a friend or family member), then you could have derivative liability.

It's worth noting that trading spikes in advance of public availability of news doesn't necessarily imply illegal activity. Overheard conversations between strangers, for example, are fair game.

jandrese 8y ago

There is probably also magnification effects from bots scanning the market for anomalies and piling on.

all_blue_chucks 8y ago

> Overheard conversations between strangers, for example, are fair game. Wrong. It's insider trading if you have material, nonpublic information. It doesn't matter how you got that information.

marcoperaza 8y ago
>Wrong. It's insider trading if you have material, nonpublic information. It doesn't matter how you got that information. You are totally mistaken as far as the law in the United States. I can’t speak for other jurisdictions.
- rrdharan 8y ago
  As I posted above, the poster is not mistaken.
  - marcoperaza 8y ago
    I think you've misread the thread.
rrdharan 8y ago
No, it only matters if you had a duty to keep that information confidential: https://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T052-C008-S001-would-you-be-guilty-of-insider-trading.html https://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T052-C008-S001-w...
- shkkmo 8y ago
  Several examples given that article seems to conflict with the explanation given in the other article linked in the replies, particularly situation 7. Your article justifies it "Yes" answer because you were told the information was confidential, but then the "case study" used to back this up includes envelopes on cash being exchanged for this information. My reading of the other article seems to indicate that you would be fine because the CEO was not compensated by you for providing the information and there is nothing to indicate that this information was given as a gift. Other article: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-07-31/when-can-investors-talk-to-companies- https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-07-31/when-c... Edit: Given the bloomberg article cites relevant supreme court cases, I'm more inclined to believe it.
scott_s 8y ago
Matt Levine has written extensively on how squishy the line can be: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-07-31/when-can-investors-talk-to-companies- https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-07-31/when-c...
- shkkmo 8y ago
  > So it's illegal "when an insider makes a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend." But if you read that too literally, you run right back into the first problem. There you are, at your job, talking on the phone with a company's investor relations department. The IR guy helps you with some questions about your model. You get off the phone convinced that the company is a buy. You go to buy stock. But wait. Your relationship with the IR guy is pretty cordial. You mentioned your love of fishing, and he said, "Hey, we ought to go fishing together sometime," and you said, "Sure, that sounds great," not that either of you meant it. That's messed up. It should be a breach of fiduciary duty to continue to interface as investor relations with an investor who you have established a friendship with. Being friendly on the phone is one thing, but join family vacations? As the relationship becomes closer, the fishier any exclusive information provided should smell. You become friends with someone? At a certain point both the investor and and investore relations personel should have to hand off the professional relationship to colleages to avoid the risk of insider trading charges.
  - ric2b 8y ago
    So don't give confidential information to outsiders of the company, whether they are friends or not? I don't see the issue.
    - scott_s 8y ago
      "Confidential" is a big word. There is a lot of internal information about a company that is not strictly labeled "confidential." Putting that aside, I think Levine's point, which he makes in the piece I linked and has made in several other columns, is relevant: > Er. Um. Sure. But another component of effective professional analysis of the value of a company's stock is talking to the company. There's a reason that companies have earnings calls. There's a reason that, when analysts get into the weeds on those calls, the companies say things like, "We'll follow up with you individually afterwards." There's a reason that companies selling stocks or bonds do one-on-one meetings with potential buyers. There's a reason that companies not selling stocks and bonds also do one-on-one meetings with current and potential investors. There's a reason that companies have investor relations departments full of people who talk to current and potential investors. All of this gets to a point Levine has also made many times over, which is there is no explicit statute outlawing insider trading. Which seems crazy! People go to prison over it. But when you sit down and try to define it, it becomes even more of a mess, so here we are.
zorga 8y ago
Absolutely not. > It doesn't matter how you got that information. Yes it does, if I didn't do anything illegal to acquire it, and I have no obligation to the company, I can use it legally, I'm not an insider.
- wahern 8y ago
  Not quite. If you knowingly acquired the information from an insider and the insider himself would be liable for your trade (e.g. you're a friend or family member), then you could have derivative liability.